Matt, it goes even further back then that. Back when Neanderthal man first learned that his feet were not only for running but he could defend himself by kicking, a ruthless caveman filed the rights to kicking and later it has evolved to what is known as Taekwondo. If you look in caves you will see stick figures shown kicking and that is Taekwondo.

Another not to well known fact is that the Kihup that is heard in Taekwondo and many other martial arts was actually a grunt as Neanderthal man had poor speaking skills. Good at getting patents but very poor speaking skills.

_________________________"IF I COME ... I'M BRINGING THE PAIN WITH ME"

Not wanting to start up another ITF-WTF debate, and I realise that ITFunity was merely commenting on the anniversary of a particular date, presumably without wider connotations, but I couldn’t resist it ...

General Choi is widely known as the “father of TKD”. This is based largely on the assumption that he came up with the name (others contend this) and his aggressive *political* control via his military influence, his KTA presidency and the ITF. His *demonstrable* martial arts qualification was largely based on having a 1st or 2nd dan black belt in Shotokan from Japan, and having trained for some time at the Chung Do Kwan, where he was awarded an *honorary* 4th Dan for political reasons (later revoked). He co-founded the Oh Do Kwan with Nam Tae Hi, who was generally considered the real martial arts technician of the two.

Previously, between 1944 and 1946 five Kwans had been founded, most of them by masters who had equal or greater martial arts rank than Choi. Choi’s Oh Do Kwan was one of several new Kwans founded during or after the Korean War, all of them offshoots of the original five. All the Kwans taught similar arts, largely Karate-based, some with a certain degree of Chinese Quan Fa influence. The Oh Do Kwan was no exception, basically teaching Chung Do Kwan TSD/KSD.

Choi and Nam composed the Chang Hon patterns, some of which were used in several Kwans up to about 1967, and which were adopted in international ITF schools exclusively of other patterns when Choi split from the KTA. The bulk of the patterns used by all the Kwans were Okinawan katas, however, and after 1967 most switched to the Palgwes/BB-patterns and later the Taegeuks.

Choi was generally considered a troublemaker with his own self-serving political agenda, and was effectively thrown out of the KTA presidency in 1965 or ’66. He then established the ITF, where he could follow that agenda and let the rest of Taesoodo/Taekwondo get on with life.

I have no wish to be antagonistic or to detract from Choi’s achievements in terms of the expansion of TKD. However, I do have difficulty accepting this widely-held assumption that he was the one true father of the art, and that this art was born in 1955, since this effectively excludes the contribution of at least five major masters who preceded him and innumerable others who contributed significantly to the art. I would honestly be willing to re-evaluate the above appraisal if anybody can give me contrastable information (i.e. not hearsay or “party line”) to indicate otherwise.

Last night I read the post and I wanted to post something similar to what you have posted but it would have be a cut and past job from the INTERNET. I had already posted a link to this but got no response.

Whether or not Choi was the most important person behind the development of TKD, and disregarding views on his methods, it is undeniable that the act of having the name Taekwon-do recognised as a martial art was a very important moment in the art's development.

It can be seen as the birth-place of ITF TKD certainly, and perhaps even WTF guys would accept that if it had not been for Choi's actions, there would not be a WTF either. I think that in itself is enough to celebrate the occasion, so I'm very happy to say HAPPY BIRTHDAY TKD!!

I would have posted something but it's scary how some people are fanatical about Master Choi. You've been gone for sometime, the last few months of debates have been more politcal rather than the usage and purpose of technique.